McLean v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

The case of McLean v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources involved an appeal against the annual valuation of a residential property located at 24 Pacific Street, Chermside. The appellants, Malcolm S and Janet A McLean, contested the valuation issued by the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources, arguing that the unimproved value of their property was undervalued. The court was tasked with deciding whether the valuation was accurate, considering factors such as local flooding, the presence of a sewer line, and the relativity with adjoining lots.

The key legal issues included the appropriate method for determining the unimproved value of land and the consideration of local factors that could affect property value. The appellants argued that the local flooding, exacerbated by retaining walls on neighbouring properties, significantly impacted the value of their property and should be accounted for in the valuation. They also contended that the relativity between their property and adjoining lots did not adequately reflect the actual impact of the flooding.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the expert testimony of the respondent's valuer, Mr MW Cowley, and the photographic evidence of flooding provided by the appellants. The court acknowledged that the local flooding had a greater impact than initially considered and agreed with Mr Cowley's assessment that an additional reduction of $1,000 was warranted. The court also considered the relativity between the subject property and the adjoining lots, concluding that the existing relativities were soundly based.

The court ultimately decided that the appropriate method for determining unimproved value was the use of sales of vacant sites of comparable lands, as supported by precedent. The court found that the sales provided by the respondent represented a fair range of comparable sales and that the unimproved value of the subject property should be set at $75,000, reflecting the additional impact of local flooding. The court also noted that the impact of the sewer line had already been accounted for in the previous valuation.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Chief Executive's valuation, and determined the unimproved value of Lot 35 on RP 95971 at $75,000. The court found that the appellants had successfully demonstrated that the valuation was incorrect due to the underestimation of the impact of local flooding.